New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt defends his paper’s labeling of Brigitte Gabriel as a “radical Islamophobe.” (Click here for CAMERA’s earlier blog about this) He disingenuously writes that

“Solomon had gone over the edited transcript with Gabriel before it was published,” and Gabriel “had no problems with the questions or the answers, as depicted in the piece.”

However, the slur “radical Islamophobe” wasn’t in the article itself, but in the Table of Contents blurb promoting the article. For Hoyt to write that Gabriel agreed the questions and answers in the article were accurate doesn’t in the least mean that she accepted as true the label of “radical Islamophobe.” And it also doesn’t mean that she didn’t think the questions were for the most part preposterous. It just means that the article reflected what was asked and answered.

Gabriel is accustomed to dealing from time to time with ill-informed and arrogant reporters, so despite Solomon’s obnoxious questions, Gabriel was still able to convey her important message and stimulate interest in her books:
“Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America,” and “They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.”

The public is weighing in on Hoyt’s lame response in the comments section that follows his column. Here are some excerpts:

Thank you for attempting to address the error made by Solomon but the ‘phobe’ does not fit. “Islam expert” perhaps, but no more ‘phobe’ than Paul Revere and his bunch warning that the British were coming. Soloman would, of course, interview Paul and write the next day of a Britophobe. Flight attendants giving instructions would be crashophobes, and so on. Should I interview Solomon I would, of course write of a truthophobe and your newspaper an apology-o-phobe.

— Posted by Paul, FL

…when we label someone phobic because they react to FACTS, we are the ones who are indeed phobic and inaccurate.

— Posted by William Buffton

We hope you will add your opinion in the comment section after Hoyt’s column. Click here to go there.

In an August 18, 2008 Washington Post article, “Story with a Few Holes; Portrait of Helen Thomas Obscures Flaws,” film reviewer Thomas Shales reminds readers of how unprofessional and partisan former reporter Helen Thomas was regarding Israel:

What’s disappointing about Thomas, and troubling about the film, is her stridency in criticizing Israel and defending its enemies. Other than a passing reference to Thomas’s parents as having been Syrian immigrants, the film never hints at Thomas’s anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Especially during the current administration, her “questions” at press briefings have been more like tirades, on one occasion prompting Tony Snow, the late journalist who was then press secretary, to respond, “Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view.” This would have been a pertinent and amusing clip to include in the film. Not for nothing was Thomas recently hailed as “the epitome of journalistic integrity for over 57 years” — by the Arab American News.

In the August 17th New York Times Magazine, the author Brigitte Gabriel is unfairly and inaccurately labeled as a “radical Islamophobe.” To be a radical Islamophobe means to have an irrational fear of radical Islam/Muslims, or to be prejudiced against them. It’s interesting, and outrageous, that the Times’ editors apparently believe that opposition to Islamic totalitarianism and supremacism must by definition be irrational or arising from prejudice.

Since when did it become irrational or prejudiced to oppose supremacists who scorn, harass and/or murder people for not being the “right” religion? Does the New York Times similarly label as crazy or bigoted the many Americans who oppose white supremacists?

* What oh-too-clever title did the Times use for this article about a Lebanese Christian activist who opposes the spread of Islamic totalitarianism? “The Crusader.”

While normally calling an activist a “crusader” is a compliment, in the context of a Christian opposing Islamic totalitarianism, it inappropriately juxtaposes Gabriel’s legitimate criticism of Muslim extremists with the Christian Crusaders who murdered thousands of Muslims (and Jews) in the Crusades.
(more…)

AP Equates Israeli Self-Defense with Iranian Threats of Genocide

The Associated Press article “Iran tests rocket for future launch of satellite,” by Nasser Karimi, offers a particularly flagrant example of media moral equivalency between Islamist terror and Israeli self-defense. The story notes that Iran’s “fledgling space program, like its nuclear program, has provoked unease abroad.” But its only reference to Iran’s repeated threats to destroy Israel appears in the 14th and final paragraph, which states:

“Israel, which is about 600 miles away from Iran, has often traded threats with the Islamic republic.”

Iran has repeatedly threatened to annihilate Israel and its citizens, but Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran and its people. In the past, the Israelis have responded to potential nuclear threats (e.g. in Iraq and Syria) with pinpoint strikes against the nuclear facilities, but they generally do not announce or “threaten” these actions ahead of time, and such actions are hardly comparable to genocide.
(more…)

In its July 29, 2008 article “Olmert: No Accord on Jerusalem This Year,” the Washington Post referred to “East Jerusalem, which Israel seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.”

The word “seized” is prejudicial in this context because it suggests that Israel deliberately set out to capture the Jordanian-occupied part of the city in an unprovoked war of conquest. This turns the facts of the Six-Day War on its collective head, as it was Israel that was besieged and attacked in what the Arabs had intended to be a war of destruction for Israel. If Jordan hadn’t attacked Israel, Israel would not have had to fight back and end up gaining eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria.
(more…)

HEZBOLLAH VALUES: CHEERING A CHILD-KILLER; TAUNTING DEAD SOLDIERS’ FAMILIES

Too little attention has been paid by the press to Hezbollah’s cruelty in taunting the families of the dead Israeli soldiers. And while reporters have noted the joyful celebrations in the Arab/Muslim world over the release of the terrorist Kuntar, as well as four terrorists from Hezbollah, not enough have delved into the heinous nature of Kuntar’s attack.

Here are two commentaries on what Hezbollah and Lebanon reveal about themselves when they celebrate the release of a man who bashed in the head of a four-year-old girl.

A Strange Kind of Hero (Boston Globe editorial)

A Moment of Moral Clarity (Gil Troy, Montreal Gazette)

Here’s a gem from Steve Huntley of the Chicago Sun-Times,
Abbas Didn’t Have to Honor Terrorist

Here is a blog item that includes a video clip of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah’s cruel taunting. Where is the mainstream media on this aspect?
(more…)

There is a great deal of disagreement about the wildly lopsided trade of live Arab terrorists for dead Israeli bodies. Many people are heartsick and in disbelief; others are not happy, but feel that the return of the Israeli bodies was worth it. Here are some interesting commentaries on the issue:

Lessons of the Swap by Shlomo Avineri

Politics and Tragedy: Israel’s Prisoner Swap by Frederick Krantz

Who Cares about our Soldiers? by Naomi Ragen

When Mistakes are Worth Making by Rabbi Daniel Gordis

Share your views below by posting a comment!

Here’s a compelling analysis of the swap of live terrorists for dead bodies:

POLITICS AND TRAGEDY: ISRAEL’S PRISONER EXCHANGE

by Frederick Krantz (www.isranet.org )

It is past time that Israel re-thought its prisoner-exchange policies. What began ca.1983 as a once-only departure from the Geneva Convention norm of reciprocal, post-conflict prisoner-exchange between states has turned into a tragically lop-sided and disproportionate freeing of large numbers of captured terrorist murderers in exchange for the bodies (and body-parts) of a few Israeli soldiers.

Issuing from the IDF’s admirable commitment to do everything to ensure the return of all Israeli prisoners and hostages, this usage has evolved into something endangering Israel. It encourages terrorist organizations to use captured Israeli soldiers and citizens as “bait”, used, even if dead, to implement further terrorist demands. Indeed, by exchanging live terrorists for dead Israelis, captives – like Gilad Shalit, still held by Hamas – are endangered, by removing any incentive to keep them alive and tolerably well.

In 1983, …
(more…)

In the World Watch section of the July 10th Wall Street Journal, items are placed under the name of the country or territory they involve. There was an item under a section erroneously called “Palestine,” and the prime minister was said to be Falam Fayyad. When CAMERA informed the Wall Street Journal that there is not yet such a country named Palestine, that the territory’s official name currently is the Palestinian Authority, the editor readily agreed and noted that the section that day had been written by a substitute who was unfamiliar with the nuances of the language involved. CAMERA also informed them of the proper spelling of Salam Fayyad’s name.

Here is the prompt correction from the Wall Street Journal, published July 11, 2008:

Salam Fayyad is the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. An item in Thursday’s World Watch column incorrectly gave his name as Falam Fayyad and indicated he was prime minister of Palestine.

The Washington Post’s Griff Witte covers the story of the brutal terror attack in Jerusalem as a eulogy for the Palestinian terrorist. Palestinian Hussam Edwyat went on a deadly rampage with a huge bulldozer through the streets of Jerusalem, crushed to death three Israelis and injured dozens, but the Post was mostly interested in how the terrorist used to have a Jewish girlfriend and what a seemingly nice guy he was.

So perhaps one would conclude, the murderer actually liked Jews, must have closed his ears and eyes to anti-Jewish incitement on Arab TV and radio stations, and was not likely to have been an actual terrorist?